|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 6 post(s) |
Mechael
Ouroboros Executor Collective
120
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 20:26:00 -
[1] - Quote
Peter Powers wrote:this looks pretty cool, and new destroyers are a good idea (love the idea of drone destroyers)
but one thing bothers me all ships and ship changes lately have been mostly positive for new players, even when t3 cruisers got introduced, their skill sets where set so they can be trained quite fast. so when are you going to give us vets a few new toys?
also what happend to t3 in other ship classes?
You act like the vets don't get these new toys, too. Or is your ePeen the measure of your total skillpoint? If you want a game based around leveling up, go play some other mmo, please. I'd rather die in battle against a man who will lie to me, than for a man who will lie to me. |
Mechael
Ouroboros Executor Collective
120
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 20:53:00 -
[2] - Quote
Any idea on when/if CCP will be looking into the turret damage formula? As it stands, any ship with a long range role that does not use large weapons is mostly obsoleted by sniper ships that do have large weapons.
Large close range weapons cannot track small targets. Why should large long range weapons be able to do this?
Would appreciate some sort of Dev response, even if it's just, "We'll think about it" or "We aren't looking into it at this time" or even "No, dumbass."
Thanks.
Oh, and these changes look great! I'd rather die in battle against a man who will lie to me, than for a man who will lie to me. |
Mechael
Ouroboros Executor Collective
120
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 20:57:00 -
[3] - Quote
Hungry Eyes wrote:i think it's really disheartening that you guys arent touching the heart of the game (BC's and cruisers) until next year. why are you dragging your feet like this? balance the damn drake already, bring T3's in line, buff command ships, give HAC's a freaking role... i mean what are you doing? who gives a **** about t1 frigs?
Nobody giving a **** about the smaller ships is exactly the problem that they're trying to solve right now.
Bigger should not equal better overall. T2 should equal more specialized, but should not equal better overall. T3 should equal more versatile, but should not equal better overall.
Get it? I'd rather die in battle against a man who will lie to me, than for a man who will lie to me. |
Mechael
Ouroboros Executor Collective
120
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 21:36:00 -
[4] - Quote
Zifrian wrote:One thing I really believe is needed is a Capital Mining ship. People say no, but a Hulk is far too easy to get into with max skill/yield/etc. Rorq's and Orca's are support ships, not mining vessels. Capital mining ships would only be used in 0.0 of course and could really help with the high mineral requirements (Trit anyone?) for 0.0 and the fact that we have the hulk to provide them.
Please, no. Never do this, CCP. I'd rather die in battle against a man who will lie to me, than for a man who will lie to me. |
Mechael
Ouroboros Executor Collective
133
|
Posted - 2012.06.16 21:20:00 -
[5] - Quote
Imryn Xaran wrote:Miners in low and null don't have to make these compromises - they can mine in absolute 100% safety when they are in an organised op. Miners in high sec (the so called "safer" region of space) are vulnerable no matter how well orgaised they are. Effectively there is no point at all to orgaising mining ops in high sec because there is no gain in effiency (you have to use a sub-optimal barge with a sub-optimal fit) and no way to improve security. In fact, a high sec mining op is less safe than solo mining because a concentrated group of barges attracts gankers. I am sick and tired of hearing about the EVE "sandbox" when it is blatantly obvious that CCP has an agenda to force players to play in certain ways and in certain areas.
What happened to encouraging group play and just how "non-broken" does that sound to you?
Highsec miners don't typically dock up or run to a POS whenever a neutral pilot enters the system. Low/null miners do. So much for 100% safety. I'd rather die in battle against a man who will lie to me, than for a man who will lie to me. |
Mechael
Ouroboros Executor Collective
133
|
Posted - 2012.06.17 21:09:00 -
[6] - Quote
Katy Ling wrote:it's good to see new and exciting balances on the frigates, where there's more viable frigates than the rifter. perhaps the developers have they're mind already set in things they want to develop and the bonus they want to give to frigates, but i would like to point out some things and why : i think that we could make good use of Logistic frigates. there are plenty of situations that i remember they could be useful. 1) - LVL 1 - 2 missions - granted a frigate / cruiser with a good tank could cover not needing logi, but it would still be nice. 2) - complexes that only allow frigates 3) - Frigate Roaming gangs yes scimitars are better, but frigates warp at 6 A.U instead of the scimitar 3.75 A.U. , so it would confere more mobility to a frigate roaming gang, at expense of less tank. those frigates would be able to fit 4 small / or 2 medium repair / cap transference modules 4) some deadspace logistic modules need a rebalance (less cap activation use), as they spend an insane cap amount, to be of any use to a frigate. (remote armour / shield / capacitor transference) - they use 90 - 120 capacitor compared with the T2 version that uses around 50-60 this is just an idea on how to give some sense to a poorly used section of frigates and modules that seem to have no role or purpose, and could make small roaming gangs more fun and cheap, as well as providing a step on logistics career.
Agreed. Logi frig would be win. So would a leadership bonus frig. I'd rather die in battle against a man who will lie to me, than for a man who will lie to me. |
Mechael
Ouroboros Executor Collective
133
|
Posted - 2012.06.17 21:19:00 -
[7] - Quote
Inspiration wrote:every two minutes (tops) you got to empty your ore hold.
You have to do something every two minutes!? How terrible! Two minutes is surely not enough time to go without doing anything. What, does CCP actually expect us to pay attention while we're playing now? Good lord, what's next? Making mining fun!? How dare they! I'd rather die in battle against a man who will lie to me, than for a man who will lie to me. |
Mechael
Ouroboros Executor Collective
145
|
Posted - 2012.06.19 09:38:00 -
[8] - Quote
Imryn Xaran wrote:they can operate in 100% safety.
Imryn Xaran wrote:100% protection is available
You keep on using this word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Only time anything is 100% safe in EVE is when it's docked in a station. Oh, and clothes for some reason are always 100% safe. Whether or not you win the game matters not. -áIt's if you bought it. |
Mechael
Ouroboros Executor Collective
148
|
Posted - 2012.06.28 06:38:00 -
[9] - Quote
Honestly, I'm expecting new barge models to support the idea that they all will have roughly similar yields. They'll all need the same number of strip miners.
At which point it only makes sense to remove the ice/merc specialties and go with the tank/bay/yield specialties discussed in the blog. Whether or not you win the game matters not. -áIt's if you bought it. |
Mechael
Ouroboros Executor Collective
198
|
Posted - 2012.07.31 06:51:00 -
[10] - Quote
El'ismhur Khunsiu wrote:Scrapyard Bob wrote:If the barges/exhumers are going to see such a large increase in their ore bay, then the Orca needs its ore bay raised as well.
Orca - ore bay is currently 50k m3
That should be raised to at least 100k m3 and possibly into the 200k m3 range.
Rorqual's ore bay should probably be boosted from 250k up to 400-500k m3. Yes completly true. We need to increase the ore bay for orca and rorqual.
If you give a mouse a cookie ...
Decrease the regular cargo capacity if you're going to increase the ore bay on the orca/rorq. Corp hangars are fine as they are. Whether or not you win the game matters not. -áIt's if you bought it. |
|
|
|
|